free-range politics, organic community

Joe Lieberman's nightmare

Submitted by gjohnsit on Tue, 04/18/2017 - 6:07pm

Back in December former Sen. Joe Lieberman gave what he probably considered a dire warning.

To the Democratic Party in particular, which not only failed to regain either chamber of Congress but also lost the White House, Leiberman said he thinks there will be a "real attempt by the left-left" to take command of the party.
"It's not the party I worked so hard for when Bill Clinton was president," Lieberman said on John Catsimatidis' radio show "The Cats Roundtable."

The leader of the Maine Young Democrats opened the rally by asking the audience who or what brought them out. When she mentioned Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the crowd applauded and cheered his name. When she mentioned Perez, the room changed.

Today also saw a new book in which Sanders gave an opinion about Hillary's campaign last fall.

In the ad, Sanders would tout Clinton for her education, healthcare and minimum wage proposals.
And he would talk about how then-Republican nominee Donald Trump was wrong about climate change and the economy.
At the end of the script were the words: "I'm with her."
“It’s so phony!” Sanders said. “I don’t want to say that.”
Sanders did not use the slogan in the ad.

“I thought this repeal bill would sail through,” he said. “It was the president’s number one priority. And what was incredible about this process was the phone calls — we had 1,959 phone calls in opposition to the American Health Care Act. We had 30 for it.”
On Friday afternoon, as congressional Democrats learned that the GOP had essentially given up on repealing the Affordable Care Act, none of them took the credit. They had never really cohered around an anti-AHCA message.

Think about that for a moment. A political victory that politicians don't take credit for. How often does that happen?
They couldn't take credit because the Democratic establishment had no plan.
Their only health care plan - Obamacare - is collapsing.

But someone did have a plan, and he's not part of The Club - Bernie Sanders.
Last year around this time the Democratic Party establishment was attacking Bernie because he supported Medicare-For-All.
Now half of the Democratic Party are cosponsors.

This tidal change in the Democratic Party is beginning to show up in the races.James Thompson, a Bernie-inspired progressive, almost won a shocking upset despite zero support from the DCCC.
In Montana, progressives sidestepped the establishment and nominated Rob Quist for the May special election.
In North Dakota, a Sanders supporter named Dustin Peyer is going to primary Blue Dog incumbent Heidi Heitkamp.

Heitkamp is near the top of her caucus in supporting Trump's nominees. She and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) were the only Democrats to vote for Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. She was also considered for a Cabinet position.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Tuesday backed former Rep. Tom Perriello in the Democratic primary for Virginia governor, the senator’s first big endorsement since the 2016 presidential election.
Perriello, who served a short stint in Congress from 2008 to 2010, will face off against Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam in the Democratic primary on June 13...
Northam was expected to have the primary field to himself and had secured endorsements from McAuliffe and a majority of elected Democratic officials in Virginia. But Perriello has upended the race with his anti-Trump rhetoric.

Polls show that Perriello has a real shot at winning against a candidate with the entire party establishment behind him.

(As I never get tired of saying: Republican populism is fake, but Democratic elitism is real).
When they made their deal with big business, the Democrats became a wonky party of technocrats and expert administrators who balanced all the various interests and came up with the answer which was best for everyone, and they distanced themselves from their earlier party-of-the-common-man pretensions. Rather than to represent the majority of the electorate, they increasingly defined their constituency as a hodgepodge of special interest. Political parties inevitably do represent plural interests, as the Democrats certainly had done ever since the Civil War, but the post-Fifties Democrats made a fractionated constituency a deliberate goal and did everything they could to avoid majoritarian appeals and to marginalize majoritarianism within the party.

The concept of "solidarity" and majoritarian appeals is incompatible with a fractionated constituency and identity politics.
Piecing together a majority is a failed strategy, but appealing to a majority's interests right from the start still works.

Comments

In 2012, tactical voting benefited Hollande at the expense of Melenchon. Such shift may not be pronounced this time as polls indicate that Melenchon would defeat both Fillon and Le Pen in the second round. However, it is conceivable that some tactical voting occurs as voters’ commitment to Melenchon (mid 60s) is not high.
Melenchon’s rise in the polls has been one of the key market drivers since the end of March. Further decline in Hamon’s votes is unlikely to support Melenchon to the same extent as it did in the last three weeks. However, the more important point is that the risk around the first round persists as (a) the top 4 candidates are within the historical margin of error and (b) the high level of undecided voters increases the uncertainty of the outcome

If Melenchon can pass Macron, then it is more than likely that France's next president will be a communist. Wow
And Bernie would have a key part in making it happen.

Railing against growing economic inequality, participation in foreign wars, and political corruption, Mélenchon has skyrocketed in the polls from distant fourth to within a hair’s breadth of the frontrunners. (This rise has been accompanied by the release of a web-based video game called “Fiscal Kombat” where Mélenchon fights corrupt politicians and bankers.)

Because no candidate is expected to get a majority of the vote, the national election on April 23 is, for all practical purposes, an elimination round. The top two vote-getters will then compete in a run-off on May 7. So in order to win the presidency, Mélenchon has to oust either centrist Emmanuel Macron or far-right Marine Le Pen, both of whom are running slightly ahead of him and conservative François Fillon.

In 2012, tactical voting benefited Hollande at the expense of Melenchon. Such shift may not be pronounced this time as polls indicate that Melenchon would defeat both Fillon and Le Pen in the second round. However, it is conceivable that some tactical voting occurs as voters’ commitment to Melenchon (mid 60s) is not high.
Melenchon’s rise in the polls has been one of the key market drivers since the end of March. Further decline in Hamon’s votes is unlikely to support Melenchon to the same extent as it did in the last three weeks. However, the more important point is that the risk around the first round persists as (a) the top 4 candidates are within the historical margin of error and (b) the high level of undecided voters increases the uncertainty of the outcome

If Melenchon can pass Macron, then it is more than likely that France's next president will be a communist. Wow
And Bernie would have a key part in making it happen.

What can one expect from someone who works for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank? Lieberman should feel right at home mixing with Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, John Bolton, and Paul Wolfowitz.

AEI is the most prominent think tank associated with American neoconservatism, in both the domestic and international policy arenas.

(from Wiki)
Bush II's administration was chocked full of American Enterprise Institute "scholars".

as the DNC leader. They don't want the party to move to the left and undue Obama's legacy. Both families are fighting behind the scenes to make sure that doesn't happen.
I read that Bernie thought saying "I'm with her" was phony on Salon and the comments from Hillary's supporters are still blaming him for her loss. And Comey and Russia of course. They will never accept that people rejected her for who she is and what she did after being the SOS.
There are too many democrats who have decided that they are okay with being centrists and they deride anyone who is left of them.

up

30 users have voted.

—

You know you’re a peasant when you worship the very people who are right now, this minute, conning you and giving you shit. Whatever the master does, you’re on board. Doh!

The wage earner/worker is by far the largest identity group in the nation. Weird how places that CLAIM they want to elect Democrats disparages this proven, and long-term over time winning appeal, writes it off. Apparently because it has white people among them!

@jim p
because of the numerous corporate $ that are funneled into their campaign coffers. The D Party, like every other major US institution, needs lots of money to fuel it. That money has to come from somewhere.

The wage earner/worker is by far the largest identity group in the nation. Weird how places that CLAIM they want to elect Democrats disparages this proven, and long-term over time winning appeal, writes it off. Apparently because it has white people among them!

@native
a nickel of it, raised campaign funds the way God intended - from campaign supporters.

#6
because of the numerous corporate $ that are funneled into their campaign coffers. The D Party, like every other major US institution, needs lots of money to fuel it. That money has to come from somewhere.

up

16 users have voted.

—

the little things you can do often are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-1.9) All about building progressive media.

@irishking
I donated more than $700, $27 (or fewer) at a time, to Bernie -- and regret not a dollar. With that money, he ripped back the curtain on electoral politics and the broken system that oppresses us. We would not be having many of the conversations we're having now without his influence.

Are these stupid "unity" tours bullshit? Yes. I pay no attention to them, because ultimately, Bernie isn't suddenly going to convert his voters into obedient little Democratic tools. The fact that the DNC continues to attempt to use him as a bird-dog says more about them than it does about him -- or us. Bernie headlining some PR stunt for Perez certainly has no influence over my agency. Democrats will never have my vote or my money, period. In the meantime, I continue to support Bernie's efforts as my Independent senator. He has a proven record of looking out for his constituents' interests and current events/developments haven't changed that.

#6.1.1.1 I donated more than $700, $27 (or fewer) at a time, to Bernie -- and regret not a dollar. With that money, he ripped back the curtain on electoral politics and the broken system that oppresses us. We would not be having many of the conversations we're having now without his influence.

Are these stupid "unity" tours bullshit? Yes. I pay no attention to them, because ultimately, Bernie isn't suddenly going to convert his voters into obedient little Democratic tools. The fact that the DNC continues to attempt to use him as a bird-dog says more about them than it does about him -- or us. Bernie headlining some PR stunt for Perez certainly has no influence over my agency. Democrats will never have my vote or my money, period. In the meantime, I continue to support Bernie's efforts as my Independent senator. He has a proven record of looking out for his constituents' interests and current events/developments haven't changed that.

@Eagles92
feeling betrayed aren't paying attention. Bernie didn't and doesn't give a damn about Hillary, the Clintons, the DNC or the Democratic party (as it stands).

#6.1.1.1 I donated more than $700, $27 (or fewer) at a time, to Bernie -- and regret not a dollar. With that money, he ripped back the curtain on electoral politics and the broken system that oppresses us. We would not be having many of the conversations we're having now without his influence.

Are these stupid "unity" tours bullshit? Yes. I pay no attention to them, because ultimately, Bernie isn't suddenly going to convert his voters into obedient little Democratic tools. The fact that the DNC continues to attempt to use him as a bird-dog says more about them than it does about him -- or us. Bernie headlining some PR stunt for Perez certainly has no influence over my agency. Democrats will never have my vote or my money, period. In the meantime, I continue to support Bernie's efforts as my Independent senator. He has a proven record of looking out for his constituents' interests and current events/developments haven't changed that.

YMMV.

up

6 users have voted.

—

the little things you can do often are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-1.9) All about building progressive media.

@Wink
Right, there isn't time to build a new party. Rather than waste our energy (and that of Sen. Sanders) trying to gin-up yet-another third party I prefer to join Bernie as an independent.

Want to change the Democrat party? No one is doing that more effectively than Sen. Sanders -- and "he's not a real Democrat," as many "real" Democrats will tell you.

Parties are becoming less and less necessary -- what happened in the KS special with virtually no national party support showed how ideas and solutions can move the needle. Meanwhile yesterday, a centrist Democrat with record-setting national support running as an anti-Trump fighter did not move the needle perceptibly. He ended up with roughly the same percentage as Clinton in his district.

#7.1
it is going to happen. We don't have 25 years to build a new party that would be any more to the Left than the Dem party is.

The concept of "solidarity" and majoritarian appeals is incompatible with a fractionated constituency and identity politics.
Piecing together a majority is a failed strategy, but appealing to a majority's interests right from the start still works.

Watch the conservatives like Alex Jones, Mike Cernovich, David Seaman, etc and you will note some
similarities with us "ultra-left", alt-left, progressive or WTF do you call us far lefties. Both groups are considerably anti-war. We are both nationalistic. Yes there are xenophobic, racist conservatives just as there are snowflake SJWs. Neither of those two groups are noted for coherent reasoning. A strong conservative element is now favoring medical marijuana and de-scheduling it. So while the merging of those conservatives with ultra-leftists will neither be strong nor long-lasting, it may produce a flurry of primaries against Repub and Demo establishment types.

Political labels are becoming irrelevant or have already become so. One label is not irrelevant: Joe Lieberman is a POS.

The concept of "solidarity" and majoritarian appeals is incompatible with a fractionated constituency and identity politics.
Piecing together a majority is a failed strategy, but appealing to a majority's interests right from the start still works.

Watch the conservatives like Alex Jones, Mike Cernovich, David Seaman, etc and you will note some
similarities with us "ultra-left", alt-left, progressive or WTF do you call us far lefties. Both groups are considerably anti-war. We are both nationalistic. Yes there are xenophobic, racist conservatives just as there are snowflake SJWs. Neither of those two groups are noted for coherent reasoning. A strong conservative element is now favoring medical marijuana and de-scheduling it. So while the merging of those conservatives with ultra-leftists will neither be strong nor long-lasting, it may produce a flurry of primaries against Repub and Demo establishment types.

Political labels are becoming irrelevant or have already become so. One label is not irrelevant: Joe Lieberman is a POS.

Weird how Democrats disparage the wage earner/workers, writing off a proven identity group with winning appeal. Apparently because it has white people among them!

The wage earner/workers pay for the wars and weapons. They pay for financing the debt that goes along with it. The pay to cover the big losses of the financial giants so that investors don't lose confidence. They pay for trade imbalances and large industry mistakes. They pay the nation's debt, which swells from the off budget wars. As part of that debt, they pay for private airplanes, lavish entertainment, luxurious surroundings, and other government excesses and overages. Above all, the workers pay for all costs for the murderous activities related to the nation's desperate madness as it races to rule the world and own all of its bounty.

But why should anyone represent American workers? Their votes don't matter anymore. They swing back and forth between the parties, between elections, and things still get worse for them and their kids. But they're still on the hook. Their choices on the ticket are owned by the Deep State — or soon will be. The winner finds out soon enough, and from that point forward they get a free ride. It only took three months for Trump to figure out who he works for, and he's much happier now than he was in January, February, and March.

The PNAC agenda continues forward as the nation's first priority.

The asset-stripping of American workers continues apace.

The wage earner/worker is by far the largest identity group in the nation. Weird how places that CLAIM they want to elect Democrats disparages this proven, and long-term over time winning appeal, writes it off. Apparently because it has white people among them!

It is why I say the Dems need to focus on the middle/working class, not billionaires and not welfare recipients. The War on Poverty was the straw that broke the backs of many working class Americans and created the Reagan Democrats. Clinton ping-ponged from there to Wall Street and billionaires.

Bernie was smack dab in the middle appealing to all working/middle-class people. With two-income families the norm in America today, two working professionals making 250K and paying for living expenses, college, elderly parents, their own inevitable retirements and old age is NOT rich. The coalition of what constitutes working/middle class must be broad. If everyone was relieved of the burdens of health care and college, everyone would be happier, healthier, more prosperous, and less resentful. With a healthier citizenry and a fairer tax structure, "most" people wouldn't mind helping the less fortunate, e.g., welfare. Maybe then, the target would finally come off their backs.

Weird how Democrats disparage the wage earner/workers, writing off a proven identity group with winning appeal. Apparently because it has white people among them!

The wage earner/workers pay for the wars and weapons. They pay for financing the debt that goes along with it. The pay to cover the big losses of the financial giants so that investors don't lose confidence. They pay for trade imbalances and large industry mistakes. They pay the nation's debt, which swells from the off budget wars. As part of that debt, they pay for private airplanes, lavish entertainment, luxurious surroundings, and other government excesses and overages. Above all, the workers pay for all costs for the murderous activities related to the nation's desperate madness as it races to rule the world and own all of its bounty.

But why should anyone represent American workers? Their votes don't matter anymore. They swing back and forth between the parties, between elections, and things still get worse for them and their kids. But they're still on the hook. Their choices on the ticket are owned by the Deep State — or soon will be. The winner finds out soon enough, and from that point forward they get a free ride. It only took three months for Trump to figure out who he works for, and he's much happier now than he was in January, February, and March.

@dkmich
is that where you draw your line, so to speak? Define welfare again? Are you talking about HUD and SNAP programs or what. Just so I know who might not deserve "taxpayer" money, 'cause I can't really tell the difference between people with unmet basic needs. Trickle-down from the middle hasn't worked either, in my view. Thanks

It is why I say the Dems need to focus on the middle/working class, not billionaires and not welfare recipients. The War on Poverty was the straw that broke the backs of many working class Americans and created the Reagan Democrats. Clinton ping-ponged from there to Wall Street and billionaires.

Bernie was smack dab in the middle appealing to all working/middle-class people. With two-income families the norm in America today, two working professionals making 250K and paying for living expenses, college, elderly parents, their own inevitable retirements and old age is NOT rich. The coalition of what constitutes working/middle class must be broad. If everyone was relieved of the burdens of health care and college, everyone would be happier, healthier, more prosperous, and less resentful. With a healthier citizenry and a fairer tax structure, "most" people wouldn't mind helping the less fortunate, e.g., welfare. Maybe then, the target would finally come off their backs.

Stamps, etc. In fact, I think the help they receive is given it such a way that it is demeaning and resentful. Pee in a cup, document your eligibility, show up & stand in line to feed your family and prove you deserve it BUT Haliburton et al gets millions from the government and doesn't have to do squat to get millions. Who doesn't deserve help is the Koch brothers, Exxon, GE, and billionaires.

What I am saying is that if the guy in the middle is getting nothing but the bill for the benefits given to those who deserve them and those who don't, the guy in the middle gets deservedly pissed. The GOP traditionally focused on redistributing the money to the top 10% and traditionally the Dems focused on redistributing the money to the bottom 10%. Hence the old "Republicans steal it, and Democrats give it away." You know "free stuff". Either way, the 80% in the middle putting in all the money aren't getting squat in return for the taxes they pay.

Most people don't mind paying taxes. They mind them being wasted, and they mind getting little to nothing back for the money they give. Because Medicare and Social Security benefit everyone, they are widely popular and supported by everyone. They are only resented by the .001% who think they are entitled to it all.

Is that clearer? I hope so. I certainly never meant my comment in the light you might have taken it.

#10.2 is that where you draw your line, so to speak? Define welfare again? Are you talking about HUD and SNAP programs or what. Just so I know who might not deserve "taxpayer" money, 'cause I can't really tell the difference between people with unmet basic needs. Trickle-down from the middle hasn't worked either, in my view. Thanks

@dkmich
and I didn't mean to sound so defensive, got triggered by other stuff elsewhere I think and was still carrying it. It's so easy for me lately. Meh.

I do remember feeling kind of pissed, even when I was only paying the self-employment taxes at the end. One year, a long time ago, I wrote a check for $96,000, that was the biggest ever (NY state inheritance tax). Now, this is year four with not even enough income to file a return :(. Wah I am not going to last another year, the math never lies dammit. At least I won't be causing you guys any more irritation, that's a relief.

Peace
P.S. After becoming poor, I started to think SNAP and HUD are also evil tools of the oligarchy. Not very helpful toward solving any problems, they are band-aids on a totally rotting corpse. Or, that's just me. I don't want charity, not trading my beliefs for scraps of food or some crony shelter "list". Thanks.

Stamps, etc. In fact, I think the help they receive is given it such a way that it is demeaning and resentful. Pee in a cup, document your eligibility, show up & stand in line to feed your family and prove you deserve it BUT Haliburton et al gets millions from the government and doesn't have to do squat to get millions. Who doesn't deserve help is the Koch brothers, Exxon, GE, and billionaires.

What I am saying is that if the guy in the middle is getting nothing but the bill for the benefits given to those who deserve them and those who don't, the guy in the middle gets deservedly pissed. The GOP traditionally focused on redistributing the money to the top 10% and traditionally the Dems focused on redistributing the money to the bottom 10%. Hence the old "Republicans steal it, and Democrats give it away." You know "free stuff". Either way, the 80% in the middle putting in all the money aren't getting squat in return for the taxes they pay.

Most people don't mind paying taxes. They mind them being wasted, and they mind getting little to nothing back for the money they give. Because Medicare and Social Security benefit everyone, they are widely popular and supported by everyone. They are only resented by the .001% who think they are entitled to it all.

Is that clearer? I hope so. I certainly never meant my comment in the light you might have taken it.

…be replaced with a Basic National Income that goes to everyone. The same amount to rich and poor, child and adult once per month. All social programs of every shape and size can be eliminated along with their expensive, bloated infrastructures. Food stamps, welfare, disability, unemployment, school lunches, meals on wheels, and on and on will no longer be needed, and there will be no more means testing. This would save the nation much wealth and insanity, and create a just society where no one goes hungry or unsheltered. Crime goes to the back burner. Jobs will still be needed to live beyond the very basics, but jobs will be more rewarding, once employers understand that they must create a engaging workplace to attract workers There will also be more time for personal growth, which is sorely needed.

This is much closer than you might think. It's being tested in Canada next year, and in many places throughout the world.

[EDITED FOR CLARITY]

#10.2 is that where you draw your line, so to speak? Define welfare again? Are you talking about HUD and SNAP programs or what. Just so I know who might not deserve "taxpayer" money, 'cause I can't really tell the difference between people with unmet basic needs. Trickle-down from the middle hasn't worked either, in my view. Thanks

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that, if self-interests are not universally removed from influence on/control over public policy in places such as Canada, that this vaguely proposed universal income (under Koch-et-al-sucking management) will be (first,) inadequate as a 'basic needs' replacement, (currently not remotely covered in housing/health-permitting reality anyway,) and (secondly,) used to eliminate not only welfare/disability but pension programs - just prior to being dropped itself, leaving a huge section of the population to starve... or, where capable, to turn to crime in order to survive? Thereby also feeding the 'needs' of the private prison/slave labour industries wishing to branch out?

Oh, well, I'll believe in it once I see the rainbow road-apples actually being deposited by the unicorns lining the roads, lol.

…be replaced with a Basic National Income that goes to everyone. The same amount to rich and poor, child and adult once per month. All social programs of every shape and size can be eliminated along with their expensive, bloated infrastructures. Food stamps, welfare, disability, unemployment, school lunches, meals on wheels, and on and on will no longer be needed, and there will be no more means testing. This would save the nation much wealth and insanity, and create a just society where no one goes hungry or unsheltered. Crime goes to the back burner. Jobs will still be needed to live beyond the very basics, but jobs will be more rewarding, once employers understand that they must create a engaging workplace to attract workers There will also be more time for personal growth, which is sorely needed.

This is much closer than you might think. It's being tested in Canada next year, and in many places throughout the world.

[EDITED FOR CLARITY]

up

2 users have voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

You've suffered great abuse. We all have. But don't you think this is everyone's first concern? This is an international global effort. The US is not really a participant, and likely never will be. It's not a giveaway. It's a massive change in sustainability that encompasses every part of life. There are meetings every day all over the world solidifying the vision.

In the US, and elsewhere, pensions and welfare can abruptly disappear. It happens. When the people have no control over the nation's budget, that state is probably not a good candidate. I see it working mathematically right now for the US, but the corruption is so intense and institutional, it is no longer morally reliable. There are many places, however, that are excellent candidates. I think as it is implemented, it will fly under the radar and simply become a fact of life. Much like national health care is. It won't be discussed with the US and the American people won't even notice it.

The test for the system's success in each country is whether the income is sufficient to assure that all 30 Articles if the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights are fulfilled — things like freedom from hunger, an affordable shelter, health care. The 40 most developed nations are already there. Even some African nations have done a great job. They would be alert for any degradation in their rights. Many of these rights, established in 1948, were never given to Americans, so that makes it more radical and a steeper climb for them. I have concerns, too.

Why do I have the sneaking suspicion that, if self-interests are not universally removed from influence on/control over public policy in places such as Canada, that this vaguely proposed universal income (under Koch-et-al-sucking management) will be (first,) inadequate as a 'basic needs' replacement, (currently not remotely covered in housing/health-permitting reality anyway,) and (secondly,) used to eliminate not only welfare/disability but pension programs - just prior to being dropped itself, leaving a huge section of the population to starve... or, where capable, to turn to crime in order to survive? Thereby also feeding the 'needs' of the private prison/slave labour industries wishing to branch out?

Oh, well, I'll believe in it once I see the rainbow road-apples actually being deposited by the unicorns lining the roads, lol.

Lol, we have not yet suffered in the way the American people have although we have been/are being 'harmonized' with the US since NAFTA, and have been rapidly deteriorating ever since.

We don't want to suffer the way Americans have, especially since Bush 2, and I certainly think it would have made far more sense for American standards and rights to have been tightened up at least to our previous (and sadly missed) standards, which weren't perfect but certainly much better than what was inflicted under Koch-sucking Harper and is being continued under Koch-sucking InJustice Trudon't.

The excuse is always 'trade deals' - but nobody - and especially not anyone in a position of public trust - has, or can claim, any 'right' to tell one group of people it's OK to poison the health and environment of other people for profit or any other 'reason', or to effectively hand over legislative control of any sort to outside hostile self-interests or foreign governments.

Edited because I somehow spelt Koch-sucking with 2 k's the 2nd time - what was I thinking???

You've suffered great abuse. We all have. But don't you think this is everyone's first concern? This is an international global effort. The US is not really a participant, and likely never will be. It's not a giveaway. It's a massive change in sustainability that encompasses every part of life. There are meetings every day all over the world solidifying the vision.

In the US, and elsewhere, pensions and welfare can abruptly disappear. It happens. When the people have no control over the nation's budget, that state is probably not a good candidate. I see it working mathematically right now for the US, but the corruption is so intense and institutional, it is no longer morally reliable. There are many places, however, that are excellent candidates. I think as it is implemented, it will fly under the radar and simply become a fact of life. Much like national health care is. It won't be discussed with the US and the American people won't even notice it.

The test for the system's success in each country is whether the income is sufficient to assure that all 30 Articles if the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights are fulfilled — things like freedom from hunger, an affordable shelter, health care. The 40 most developed nations are already there. Even some African nations have done a great job. They would be alert for any degradation in their rights. Many of these rights, established in 1948, were never given to Americans, so that makes it more radical and a steeper climb for them. I have concerns, too.

up

1 user has voted.

—

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

If everyone was relieved of the burdens of health care and college, everyone would be happier, healthier, more prosperous, and less resentful.

I would add an affordable, hunger-free old age to the burden-lifting list, above. Being human means something. Only by respecting that can we rescue ourselves.

One reason governments are formed is to develop a healthy, well-educated society as a foundation for the future. If those basic rights are denied to any part of society, then that government has failed. In the 20th century, Neoliberals and their plutocrats pushed regressive social policies that now produce more criminals per capita than any other nation on earth. We didn't need a government to create a criminal class and commoditize the incarceration of the people.

It is why I say the Dems need to focus on the middle/working class, not billionaires and not welfare recipients. The War on Poverty was the straw that broke the backs of many working class Americans and created the Reagan Democrats. Clinton ping-ponged from there to Wall Street and billionaires.

Bernie was smack dab in the middle appealing to all working/middle-class people. With two-income families the norm in America today, two working professionals making 250K and paying for living expenses, college, elderly parents, their own inevitable retirements and old age is NOT rich. The coalition of what constitutes working/middle class must be broad. If everyone was relieved of the burdens of health care and college, everyone would be happier, healthier, more prosperous, and less resentful. With a healthier citizenry and a fairer tax structure, "most" people wouldn't mind helping the less fortunate, e.g., welfare. Maybe then, the target would finally come off their backs.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but in the face of the propaganda smear machines and the subversion of many of even once-reliable leftist/independent sites to support spewed propaganda by those intent on suppressing the whole idea of government of, by and for the people, along with the only major-Party Presidential nomination candidate who was honestly running against the global take-over machine and for actual democracy, I'm going to plunk in some alternative suggestions which I consider to be more typical of Bernie's characteristics and character next to yours.

... 1. His campaign was bogus from the beginning. Never intended to win.
But he didn't say that when he took our money and time.

Actually, I recall that Bernie did a tour prior to announcing his run for the Presidency, to be sure he had the support and said that he would not have run if he did not believe that he had a chance of winning the nomination - as he did, even if the world was cheated of his win.

2. He actually protected HRC on the email issue which was huge. Podesta emails show he had agreed to limit his criticisms of the Clintons early on.

Bernie does not do personal attacks and sticks to the issues. He did not appear to be acting to protect Hillary, but just being Bernie; a decent man concerned with the horrific state to which many of the people have been overall reduced.

3. Ignored evidence of fraud in the primary. The entire progressive wing of the party was cheated, but Bernie gives it all a pass on our behalf.

Here and below - what, logically, could Bernie do which would not simply have shut down the access he so painfully gained to reach the people otherwise hearing nothing but corporate propaganda?

I'm amazed at the number of people who fail to understand that what's being fought here is worse, more destructive and encroaching than the last attempt at a global take-over by fascist powers and that strategy is required, same as then.

4. Laid down like a lamb when the platform committee put the screws to progressive program.

Stein said herself in an interview I read at the time that she actually was going to have to try to convince the Green Party to change their rules to allow an outsider in. She could not even guarantee Bernie any spot; although the offer was nicely made, it was not her decision alone to make.

6. For updates on his latest antics on behalf of the Party, see the news, Sane Progressive rants,etc. He goes on and on. RUSSIA! ...

That's absolute lunacy and it's possible that he may be trapped in the bubble for all I know. But if Bernie's still in there somewhere and obliged to spout this garbage, he knows that no informed person will fall for this line, any more than they'd have supported the Mad Bomber.

Bernie is doing what he can to provide a contrast between what the Corporate Parties claim is possible and what Americans should have, being the only voice bringing the constant reminder of such basics as all other wealthy industrialized - and a good many non-wealthy - countries having health care available to all citizens as a right. This would not otherwise be mentioned as being possible to those restricted to corporate news and Bernie is evidently doing whatever he has to to keep the message of 'government working for the public good and better lives for the people are possible' alive in the hearts and minds of the heavily-propagandized-otherwise American people.

7. And let's not forget those tax returns. Bernie,along with his wife and campaign staff.lied repeatedly. very disappointing.

Needs to be read in full and links followed at source, of course, but not sure where Bernie was supposed to have lied about something which would have been the least of his worries at the time.

Gee, I wonder who'd have been concerned about smearing Bernie Sanders and his message to destroy the faith of progressives in change being possible?

Bernie Sanders has just released his full tax return for 2014, which you can read at this link. One key point in the Democratic debate on Thursday night involved a discussion about transparency. During the debate, he said he would be releasing his 2014 tax returns as early as Friday. Interestingly he already released his 1040 tax summary from 2014 awhile back, and we have a link to it in this story under Fact 4. But some people want more details, including all the attached Schedules and an itemized list of every deduction. Meanwhile, others believe that for someone with an income below $300,000 like his, there’s no reason to get a more detailed tax return. But now, all those details are available.

Here’s what you need to know.
1. Bernie Sanders Has Released His Entire 2014 Tax Return, Which Included Itemized Deductions ...

... Sanders said that he would release his full 2014 tax return on Friday, and he kept his word despite a long trip to the Vatican. You can see his full tax return at this link.

Sanders warned at the debate that because he doesn’t make much money, the tax returns are going to be very boring. This was confirmed. His income for the entire year was less than Hillary Clinton has made for one speech at certain venues: ...

... Among the deductions on his 2014 return were:

$22,946 on home mortgage interest
$14,843 on real estate taxes
$9,666 on state and local income taxes
$8,000 in gifts to charity
$350 in gifts to charity other than by cash or check
$4,473 in unreimbursed job expenses, which according to tax law can include fees such as union dues and travel

His wife, Jane, ran a business that only made $4,900 in 2014. They claimed zero expenses for that business: ...

... As a Senator, Sanders already releases annual financial disclosures that date back to 2012 online. He also filed financial disclosure documents with the Federal Election Commission, Politifact reported. Tax returns are more detailed than these disclosures. ...

... Bernie Sanders pushed Hillary Clinton to release the transcripts of her paid speeches given to Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs. Clinton responded that she would release her transcripts when everyone else was equally transparent, including Sanders’ releasing his tax returns. So Sanders took Clinton up on her offer, announcing that yes, he will be releasing his 2014 tax return on Friday. You can see the first part of the exchange in the video above. Clinton did not respond with a promise of her own, so at this point it look like we won’t be seeing transcripts of her speeches yet. ...

... When asked why he hadn’t released all of his tax returns yet, Sanders said this his wife Jane prepares their taxes every year.

In fact, the summary of their 1040 tax return that was already released indicates that it was, indeed, self-prepared. As you can see under Fact #1, Jane herself made $4,900 for her business income and claimed no expenses for the business in 2014.

Jane Sanders accompanied Bernie to the Vatican on Friday, along with their children and grandchildren. This may account for a delay in releasing the full, itemized return for 2014 in addition to the 1040 form. It was released at the end of the day on Friday. ...

... According to TaxHistory.org, Sanders already released the summary of his 2014 tax returns quite a while back. You can see the Form 1040 from 2014 in PDF form at this link. Sure enough, the return is labeled as “self prepared.” It lists his wages as being $156,441 and adjusted gross income as being $205,271. The majority of that income is from his salary as Senator and Social Security benefits. He owed a total of $27,653 in federal income tax, paid $31,825, and got a tax refund in 2014 of $4,172. He also owed another $7,903 in Vermont income tax. Bernie and Jane Sanders paid an effective tax rate of 19.6 percent on their federal taxable income in 2014.

Whats’ the difference between a 1040 tax summary and a full tax return? When Sanders released his full tax return, it included details like charitable donations and itemized deductions and all the attached schedules. ...

... Sanders has a net worth of about $300,000, making him one of the poorest of the presidential candidates. His public disclosures place his net worth at between $194,026 and $741,030, Politico reported. Some media sources just take the highest number and report his net worth at $700,00, but this is inaccurate. The total is likely around $300,00, since as early as 2013 he had an estimated net worth of $330,000, NPR reported. This is far below most members of Congress, where the median net worth in 2013 was $1 million. In the Senate, the median was $2.8 million.

You can read more about his net worth here.

Bernie has different priorities than so the Clintons and their ilk. And it's always a mistake to underestimate him, no matter what the corporate politicians may be like. Just something I try to keep in mind, myself.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but in the face of the propaganda smear machines and the subversion of many of even once-reliable leftist/independent sites to support spewed propaganda by those intent on suppressing the whole idea of government of, by and for the people, along with the only major-Party Presidential nomination candidate who was honestly running against the global take-over machine and for actual democracy, I'm going to plunk in some alternative suggestions which I consider to be more typical of Bernie's characteristics and character next to yours.

... 1. His campaign was bogus from the beginning. Never intended to win.
But he didn't say that when he took our money and time.

Actually, I recall that Bernie did a tour prior to announcing his run for the Presidency, to be sure he had the support and said that he would not have run if he did not believe that he had a chance of winning the nomination - as he did, even if the world was cheated of his win.

2. He actually protected HRC on the email issue which was huge. Podesta emails show he had agreed to limit his criticisms of the Clintons early on.

Bernie does not do personal attacks and sticks to the issues. He did not appear to be acting to protect Hillary, but just being Bernie; a decent man concerned with the horrific state to which many of the people have been overall reduced.

3. Ignored evidence of fraud in the primary. The entire progressive wing of the party was cheated, but Bernie gives it all a pass on our behalf.

Here and below - what, logically, could Bernie do which would not simply have shut down the access he so painfully gained to reach the people otherwise hearing nothing but corporate propaganda?

I'm amazed at the number of people who fail to understand that what's being fought here is worse, more destructive and encroaching than the last attempt at a global take-over by fascist powers and that strategy is required, same as then.

4. Laid down like a lamb when the platform committee put the screws to progressive program.

Stein said herself in an interview I read at the time that she actually was going to have to try to convince the Green Party to change their rules to allow an outsider in. She could not even guarantee Bernie any spot; although the offer was nicely made, it was not her decision alone to make.

6. For updates on his latest antics on behalf of the Party, see the news, Sane Progressive rants,etc. He goes on and on. RUSSIA! ...

That's absolute lunacy and it's possible that he may be trapped in the bubble for all I know. But if Bernie's still in there somewhere and obliged to spout this garbage, he knows that no informed person will fall for this line, any more than they'd have supported the Mad Bomber.

Bernie is doing what he can to provide a contrast between what the Corporate Parties claim is possible and what Americans should have, being the only voice bringing the constant reminder of such basics as all other wealthy industrialized - and a good many non-wealthy - countries having health care available to all citizens as a right. This would not otherwise be mentioned as being possible to those restricted to corporate news and Bernie is evidently doing whatever he has to to keep the message of 'government working for the public good and better lives for the people are possible' alive in the hearts and minds of the heavily-propagandized-otherwise American people.

7. And let's not forget those tax returns. Bernie,along with his wife and campaign staff.lied repeatedly. very disappointing.

Needs to be read in full and links followed at source, of course, but not sure where Bernie was supposed to have lied about something which would have been the least of his worries at the time.

Gee, I wonder who'd have been concerned about smearing Bernie Sanders and his message to destroy the faith of progressives in change being possible?

Bernie Sanders has just released his full tax return for 2014, which you can read at this link. One key point in the Democratic debate on Thursday night involved a discussion about transparency. During the debate, he said he would be releasing his 2014 tax returns as early as Friday. Interestingly he already released his 1040 tax summary from 2014 awhile back, and we have a link to it in this story under Fact 4. But some people want more details, including all the attached Schedules and an itemized list of every deduction. Meanwhile, others believe that for someone with an income below $300,000 like his, there’s no reason to get a more detailed tax return. But now, all those details are available.

Here’s what you need to know.
1. Bernie Sanders Has Released His Entire 2014 Tax Return, Which Included Itemized Deductions ...

... Sanders said that he would release his full 2014 tax return on Friday, and he kept his word despite a long trip to the Vatican. You can see his full tax return at this link.

Sanders warned at the debate that because he doesn’t make much money, the tax returns are going to be very boring. This was confirmed. His income for the entire year was less than Hillary Clinton has made for one speech at certain venues: ...

... Among the deductions on his 2014 return were:

$22,946 on home mortgage interest
$14,843 on real estate taxes
$9,666 on state and local income taxes
$8,000 in gifts to charity
$350 in gifts to charity other than by cash or check
$4,473 in unreimbursed job expenses, which according to tax law can include fees such as union dues and travel

His wife, Jane, ran a business that only made $4,900 in 2014. They claimed zero expenses for that business: ...

... As a Senator, Sanders already releases annual financial disclosures that date back to 2012 online. He also filed financial disclosure documents with the Federal Election Commission, Politifact reported. Tax returns are more detailed than these disclosures. ...

... Bernie Sanders pushed Hillary Clinton to release the transcripts of her paid speeches given to Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs. Clinton responded that she would release her transcripts when everyone else was equally transparent, including Sanders’ releasing his tax returns. So Sanders took Clinton up on her offer, announcing that yes, he will be releasing his 2014 tax return on Friday. You can see the first part of the exchange in the video above. Clinton did not respond with a promise of her own, so at this point it look like we won’t be seeing transcripts of her speeches yet. ...

... When asked why he hadn’t released all of his tax returns yet, Sanders said this his wife Jane prepares their taxes every year.

In fact, the summary of their 1040 tax return that was already released indicates that it was, indeed, self-prepared. As you can see under Fact #1, Jane herself made $4,900 for her business income and claimed no expenses for the business in 2014.

Jane Sanders accompanied Bernie to the Vatican on Friday, along with their children and grandchildren. This may account for a delay in releasing the full, itemized return for 2014 in addition to the 1040 form. It was released at the end of the day on Friday. ...

... According to TaxHistory.org, Sanders already released the summary of his 2014 tax returns quite a while back. You can see the Form 1040 from 2014 in PDF form at this link. Sure enough, the return is labeled as “self prepared.” It lists his wages as being $156,441 and adjusted gross income as being $205,271. The majority of that income is from his salary as Senator and Social Security benefits. He owed a total of $27,653 in federal income tax, paid $31,825, and got a tax refund in 2014 of $4,172. He also owed another $7,903 in Vermont income tax. Bernie and Jane Sanders paid an effective tax rate of 19.6 percent on their federal taxable income in 2014.

Whats’ the difference between a 1040 tax summary and a full tax return? When Sanders released his full tax return, it included details like charitable donations and itemized deductions and all the attached schedules. ...

... Sanders has a net worth of about $300,000, making him one of the poorest of the presidential candidates. His public disclosures place his net worth at between $194,026 and $741,030, Politico reported. Some media sources just take the highest number and report his net worth at $700,00, but this is inaccurate. The total is likely around $300,00, since as early as 2013 he had an estimated net worth of $330,000, NPR reported. This is far below most members of Congress, where the median net worth in 2013 was $1 million. In the Senate, the median was $2.8 million.

You can read more about his net worth here.

Bernie has different priorities than so the Clintons and their ilk. And it's always a mistake to underestimate him, no matter what the corporate politicians may be like. Just something I try to keep in mind, myself.

2. The email issue was very important. It raised questions about the Clinton Foundtion,corruption, national security, etc. Sanders shut this down at the debate- tried to paint it as irrelevant personal attack by O'Malley. Certainly not his place to decide she doesn't have to answer questions on this topic. Question waited in general and should have been cleared up.

3. What should he have done? State the obvious truth- DNC is cheating
us. Not Bernie, but us. He let it pass.

4. Same answer. The platform committe was stacked and did not give an inch to progressives.
It was so bad that Cornell West quit committee rather than sign on to platform. Bernie said nothing.

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but in the face of the propaganda smear machines and the subversion of many of even once-reliable leftist/independent sites to support spewed propaganda by those intent on suppressing the whole idea of government of, by and for the people, along with the only major-Party Presidential nomination candidate who was honestly running against the global take-over machine and for actual democracy, I'm going to plunk in some alternative suggestions which I consider to be more typical of Bernie's characteristics and character next to yours.

... 1. His campaign was bogus from the beginning. Never intended to win.
But he didn't say that when he took our money and time.

Actually, I recall that Bernie did a tour prior to announcing his run for the Presidency, to be sure he had the support and said that he would not have run if he did not believe that he had a chance of winning the nomination - as he did, even if the world was cheated of his win.

2. He actually protected HRC on the email issue which was huge. Podesta emails show he had agreed to limit his criticisms of the Clintons early on.

Bernie does not do personal attacks and sticks to the issues. He did not appear to be acting to protect Hillary, but just being Bernie; a decent man concerned with the horrific state to which many of the people have been overall reduced.

3. Ignored evidence of fraud in the primary. The entire progressive wing of the party was cheated, but Bernie gives it all a pass on our behalf.

Here and below - what, logically, could Bernie do which would not simply have shut down the access he so painfully gained to reach the people otherwise hearing nothing but corporate propaganda?

I'm amazed at the number of people who fail to understand that what's being fought here is worse, more destructive and encroaching than the last attempt at a global take-over by fascist powers and that strategy is required, same as then.

4. Laid down like a lamb when the platform committee put the screws to progressive program.

Stein said herself in an interview I read at the time that she actually was going to have to try to convince the Green Party to change their rules to allow an outsider in. She could not even guarantee Bernie any spot; although the offer was nicely made, it was not her decision alone to make.

6. For updates on his latest antics on behalf of the Party, see the news, Sane Progressive rants,etc. He goes on and on. RUSSIA! ...

That's absolute lunacy and it's possible that he may be trapped in the bubble for all I know. But if Bernie's still in there somewhere and obliged to spout this garbage, he knows that no informed person will fall for this line, any more than they'd have supported the Mad Bomber.

Bernie is doing what he can to provide a contrast between what the Corporate Parties claim is possible and what Americans should have, being the only voice bringing the constant reminder of such basics as all other wealthy industrialized - and a good many non-wealthy - countries having health care available to all citizens as a right. This would not otherwise be mentioned as being possible to those restricted to corporate news and Bernie is evidently doing whatever he has to to keep the message of 'government working for the public good and better lives for the people are possible' alive in the hearts and minds of the heavily-propagandized-otherwise American people.

7. And let's not forget those tax returns. Bernie,along with his wife and campaign staff.lied repeatedly. very disappointing.

Needs to be read in full and links followed at source, of course, but not sure where Bernie was supposed to have lied about something which would have been the least of his worries at the time.

Gee, I wonder who'd have been concerned about smearing Bernie Sanders and his message to destroy the faith of progressives in change being possible?

Bernie Sanders has just released his full tax return for 2014, which you can read at this link. One key point in the Democratic debate on Thursday night involved a discussion about transparency. During the debate, he said he would be releasing his 2014 tax returns as early as Friday. Interestingly he already released his 1040 tax summary from 2014 awhile back, and we have a link to it in this story under Fact 4. But some people want more details, including all the attached Schedules and an itemized list of every deduction. Meanwhile, others believe that for someone with an income below $300,000 like his, there’s no reason to get a more detailed tax return. But now, all those details are available.

Here’s what you need to know.
1. Bernie Sanders Has Released His Entire 2014 Tax Return, Which Included Itemized Deductions ...

... Sanders said that he would release his full 2014 tax return on Friday, and he kept his word despite a long trip to the Vatican. You can see his full tax return at this link.

Sanders warned at the debate that because he doesn’t make much money, the tax returns are going to be very boring. This was confirmed. His income for the entire year was less than Hillary Clinton has made for one speech at certain venues: ...

... Among the deductions on his 2014 return were:

$22,946 on home mortgage interest
$14,843 on real estate taxes
$9,666 on state and local income taxes
$8,000 in gifts to charity
$350 in gifts to charity other than by cash or check
$4,473 in unreimbursed job expenses, which according to tax law can include fees such as union dues and travel

His wife, Jane, ran a business that only made $4,900 in 2014. They claimed zero expenses for that business: ...

... As a Senator, Sanders already releases annual financial disclosures that date back to 2012 online. He also filed financial disclosure documents with the Federal Election Commission, Politifact reported. Tax returns are more detailed than these disclosures. ...

... Bernie Sanders pushed Hillary Clinton to release the transcripts of her paid speeches given to Wall Street firms, such as Goldman Sachs. Clinton responded that she would release her transcripts when everyone else was equally transparent, including Sanders’ releasing his tax returns. So Sanders took Clinton up on her offer, announcing that yes, he will be releasing his 2014 tax return on Friday. You can see the first part of the exchange in the video above. Clinton did not respond with a promise of her own, so at this point it look like we won’t be seeing transcripts of her speeches yet. ...

... When asked why he hadn’t released all of his tax returns yet, Sanders said this his wife Jane prepares their taxes every year.

In fact, the summary of their 1040 tax return that was already released indicates that it was, indeed, self-prepared. As you can see under Fact #1, Jane herself made $4,900 for her business income and claimed no expenses for the business in 2014.

Jane Sanders accompanied Bernie to the Vatican on Friday, along with their children and grandchildren. This may account for a delay in releasing the full, itemized return for 2014 in addition to the 1040 form. It was released at the end of the day on Friday. ...

... According to TaxHistory.org, Sanders already released the summary of his 2014 tax returns quite a while back. You can see the Form 1040 from 2014 in PDF form at this link. Sure enough, the return is labeled as “self prepared.” It lists his wages as being $156,441 and adjusted gross income as being $205,271. The majority of that income is from his salary as Senator and Social Security benefits. He owed a total of $27,653 in federal income tax, paid $31,825, and got a tax refund in 2014 of $4,172. He also owed another $7,903 in Vermont income tax. Bernie and Jane Sanders paid an effective tax rate of 19.6 percent on their federal taxable income in 2014.

Whats’ the difference between a 1040 tax summary and a full tax return? When Sanders released his full tax return, it included details like charitable donations and itemized deductions and all the attached schedules. ...

... Sanders has a net worth of about $300,000, making him one of the poorest of the presidential candidates. His public disclosures place his net worth at between $194,026 and $741,030, Politico reported. Some media sources just take the highest number and report his net worth at $700,00, but this is inaccurate. The total is likely around $300,00, since as early as 2013 he had an estimated net worth of $330,000, NPR reported. This is far below most members of Congress, where the median net worth in 2013 was $1 million. In the Senate, the median was $2.8 million.

You can read more about his net worth here.

Bernie has different priorities than so the Clintons and their ilk. And it's always a mistake to underestimate him, no matter what the corporate politicians may be like. Just something I try to keep in mind, myself.

the DLC who was not a Southerner with Presidential aspirations who had no idea how to carry his home state in a Presidential race. Al From and the Clintons gave them hope: "The right has Republicans and Libertarians; the left has nowhere else to go. So run, don't walk, to your right." (Not actually a direct quote, but that's what happened.)

Connecticut Democrats finally rejected Lieberman, nominating Lamont instead. Lieberman then *wink wink* won Connecticut as an Indie, in part because people like Obama, Schumer and Hillary had weakened Lamont when they rushed to campaign for Lieberman in the primary because incumbent. (Lamont was no liberal, but he would not have campaigned for McCain.)

Yes, they all duly endorsed Lamont in the general. As Democrats, did they have much of a choice? However, by then, it may have been too late, since they had damaged him in the primaries. Moreover, I'm not sure if they campaigned for Lamont or simply endorsed him. (I don't think Parties should interfere in primaries.).

With the support of Bush Republicans, who backed away from their own guy entirely, and no vigorous opposition from Democrats, Lieberman won Connecticut as an Indie. Once. Now he's out of elected office entirely, making a fortune, no doubt as a lobbyist who played with both sides, including campaigning for McCain against Obama. So, for Lieberman:

I don't see any significant change in Democrats yet.

Several of your recent essays say no change and I tend to agree, based on conduct. Democrats have long been almost fearlessly liberal when Republicans are in control and nothing Democrats do can possibly matter. IMO, "Repeal and Replace Obamacare" did not work because the Koch brothers offered millions in campaign donations to those who voted against it; and the Freedom Caucus went with the Koch brothers over their Republican Speaker and President. https://caucus99percent.com/content/obamacare-v-ryancare-and-corner-winner If that doesn't speak volumes about who is represented in Congress and who is not, I cannot imagine what would, short of (snort) politicians' finally coming clean.

Sanders, Warren and Medicare for All

Medicare for All, or HR 676, has long been the plan of John Conyers. He has filed it every year for about a dozen years or more, including 2015-2016 and 2015-2017. At one point, maybe sometime between 2007 and 2009, when the Congressional Progressive Caucus numbered 100 members, there were also finally 100 co-sponsors of HR 676. I know it had 93 co-sponsors in 2007 when a strong Democratic majority Congress did not pass it. https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/676/cosponsors

Seems a lot of people never knew that or have forgotten it. And, again, when Democrats know for certain that nothing will come of their pretending to be liberal, they are almost as liberal as Eugene Debs.

Sanders and Warren know, as we all do, that Medicare for All is not going to pass this Congress, yet they are holding rallies and raising money. With these rallies, Warren is also getting a head start on her Senate campaign. (Several Massachusetts Republicans have made noise about challenging her.)

I don't know about the Sanders-Warren rallies or Warren's fundraising. Sanders, however, has been sending his primary campaign donors emails asking for donations to pass for Medicare for All. His emails give no hint that this Congress will never pass Medicare for All--hell this Congress couldn't even pass Ryancare. His emails also do not mention Conyers. I am not a fan of either of those things.

I am happy that some of the candidates that Bernie endorsed won. I will be curious to see if they have any impact, long-term or short-term, or they just meld with the existing pack. I am very interested in outcomes. I have very little interest labels or in speeches that lead nowhere.

@HenryAWallace
Absent any actual intention to pass it when in power, it’s just a talking point to separate the party’s naively trusting followers from their money?

the DLC who was not a Southerner with Presidential aspirations who had no idea how to carry his home state in a Presidential race. Al From and the Clintons gave them hope: "The right has Republicans and Libertarians; the left has nowhere else to go. So run, don't walk, to your right." (Not actually a direct quote, but that's what happened.)

Connecticut Democrats finally rejected Lieberman, nominating Lamont instead. Lieberman then *wink wink* won Connecticut as an Indie, in part because people like Obama, Schumer and Hillary had weakened Lamont when they rushed to campaign for Lieberman in the primary because incumbent. (Lamont was no liberal, but he would not have campaigned for McCain.)

Yes, they all duly endorsed Lamont in the general. As Democrats, did they have much of a choice? However, by then, it may have been too late, since they had damaged him in the primaries. Moreover, I'm not sure if they campaigned for Lamont or simply endorsed him. (I don't think Parties should interfere in primaries.).

With the support of Bush Republicans, who backed away from their own guy entirely, and no vigorous opposition from Democrats, Lieberman won Connecticut as an Indie. Once. Now he's out of elected office entirely, making a fortune, no doubt as a lobbyist who played with both sides, including campaigning for McCain against Obama. So, for Lieberman:

I don't see any significant change in Democrats yet.

Several of your recent essays say no change and I tend to agree, based on conduct. Democrats have long been almost fearlessly liberal when Republicans are in control and nothing Democrats do can possibly matter. IMO, "Repeal and Replace Obamacare" did not work because the Koch brothers offered millions in campaign donations to those who voted against it; and the Freedom Caucus went with the Koch brothers over their Republican Speaker and President. https://caucus99percent.com/content/obamacare-v-ryancare-and-corner-winner If that doesn't speak volumes about who is represented in Congress and who is not, I cannot imagine what would, short of (snort) politicians' finally coming clean.

Sanders, Warren and Medicare for All

Medicare for All, or HR 676, has long been the plan of John Conyers. He has filed it every year for about a dozen years or more, including 2015-2016 and 2015-2017. At one point, maybe sometime between 2007 and 2009, when the Congressional Progressive Caucus numbered 100 members, there were also finally 100 co-sponsors of HR 676. I know it had 93 co-sponsors in 2007 when a strong Democratic majority Congress did not pass it. https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/house-bill/676/cosponsors

Seems a lot of people never knew that or have forgotten it. And, again, when Democrats know for certain that nothing will come of their pretending to be liberal, they are almost as liberal as Eugene Debs.

Sanders and Warren know, as we all do, that Medicare for All is not going to pass this Congress, yet they are holding rallies and raising money. With these rallies, Warren is also getting a head start on her Senate campaign. (Several Massachusetts Republicans have made noise about challenging her.)

I don't know about the Sanders-Warren rallies or Warren's fundraising. Sanders, however, has been sending his primary campaign donors emails asking for donations to pass for Medicare for All. His emails give no hint that this Congress will never pass Medicare for All--hell this Congress couldn't even pass Ryancare. His emails also do not mention Conyers. I am not a fan of either of those things.

I am happy that some of the candidates that Bernie endorsed won. I will be curious to see if they have any impact, long-term or short-term, or they just meld with the existing pack. I am very interested in outcomes. I have very little interest labels or in speeches that lead nowhere.

Only two things can can undo Roe v. Wade and any other Constitutional decision of the SCOTUS. One is a a Constitutional amendment, which is unlikely ever to make it out of Congress, let alone get ratified. (This essay details why. https://caucus99percent.com/content/lets-amend-constitution) The other thing that can undo a Constitutional decision of the SCOTUS is for the Court to overrule its own earlier decision, which the Court can do at any time--but supposedly tries not to.

IMO, Roe is especially vulnerable to being overruled if when examined again by the SCOTUS because it rests partly on the ability of the fetus to survive independently. The Roe Court was convinced that was not medically possible for a fetus to survive outside the woman's body until after the first trimester. Now, thanks to advances in medical science, it is possible. Not easy, but possible.

While medical science has been progressing, Republicans have done everything they can to pack the Court with anti-abortion, even anti-contraception, Justices. Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy and the late Scalia all self-identified as Catholics, Catholics being against both abortion and contraception. I'm not sure how Gorsuch self identifies now--his wiki doesn't say--but he went to Catholic school K through 12.

So, yeah, IMO, Republicans have done every thing they realistically can to get rid of Roe.

Democrats certainly had an opportunity to enact HR 676, which was ready to go when Obama took office. You know what happened. Do I think Democrats have changed since they passed up their opportunity to pass HR 676? My prior post says, so far, I see no reason to think they've changed.

If I were posting this on a different kind of board, Democrats would be accusing me of sticking up for Republicans and would be arguing that Obamacare was never intended to be the be all and end all. If only I had I done the right thing (according to them), I would have made sure about the elections of Hillary and 70 liberal Democratic Senators (to account for the alleged blue dogs--which they all are now, IMO), plus a House majority. In reality, I stick up for facts, whether or not they are inconvenient. I hope my posts prove that. I'll let you and other readers be the judge of the reality of the rest of the argument I think I might get on another board.

Bottom line, everything wrong with Congressional Democrats, the security of Roe v. Wade and the deplorable state of a national health plan and health care outcomes in the US, appears to be my fault, including that Reid would not use the nuclear option to get his President's guy on the SCOTUS Bench, but McConnell did. I'm so very sorry!

#13 Absent any actual intention to pass it when in power, it’s just a talking point to separate the party’s naively trusting followers from their money?

Only two things can can undo Roe v. Wade and any other Constitutional decision of the SCOTUS. One is a a Constitutional amendment, which is unlikely ever to make it out of Congress, let alone get ratified. (This essay details why. https://caucus99percent.com/content/lets-amend-constitution) The other thing that can undo a Constitutional decision of the SCOTUS is for the Court to overrule its own earlier decision, which the Court can do at any time--but supposedly tries not to.

IMO, Roe is especially vulnerable to being overruled if when examined again by the SCOTUS because it rests partly on the ability of the fetus to survive independently. The Roe Court was convinced that was not medically possible for a fetus to survive outside the woman's body until after the first trimester. Now, thanks to advances in medical science, it is possible. Not easy, but possible.

While medical science has been progressing, Republicans have done everything they can to pack the Court with anti-abortion, even anti-contraception, Justices. Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy and the late Scalia all self-identified as Catholics, Catholics being against both abortion and contraception. I'm not sure how Gorsuch self identifies now--his wiki doesn't say--but he went to Catholic school K through 12.

So, yeah, IMO, Republicans have done every thing they realistically can to get rid of Roe.

Democrats certainly had an opportunity to enact HR 676, which was ready to go when Obama took office. You know what happened. Do I think Democrats have changed since they passed up their opportunity to pass HR 676? My prior post says, so far, I see no reason to think they've changed.

If I were posting this on a different kind of board, Democrats would be accusing me of sticking up for Republicans and would be arguing that Obamacare was never intended to be the be all and end all. If only I had I done the right thing (according to them), I would have made sure about the elections of Hillary and 70 liberal Democratic Senators (to account for the alleged blue dogs--which they all are now, IMO), plus a House majority. In reality, I stick up for facts, whether or not they are inconvenient. I hope my posts prove that. I'll let you and other readers be the judge of the reality of the rest of the argument I think I might get on another board.

Bottom line, everything wrong with Congressional Democrats, the security of Roe v. Wade and the deplorable state of a national health plan and health care outcomes in the US, appears to be my fault, including that Reid would not use the nuclear option to get his President's guy on the SCOTUS Bench, but McConnell did. I'm so very sorry!